4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in İstanbul. He was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association at the time of lodging the application, and was the Istanbul department director of the Contemporary Lawyers' Association at the time of the events. The applicant also pursued various activities for the furtherance of human rights protection in Turkey.
5.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant was injured during a commotion amongst the public which took place at the Aydın Assize Court, following the delivery of a verdict convicting six police officers of torturing and killing a detainee. A number of the public consisted of off-duty police officers in civilian clothes, journalists, representatives of various associations and relatives of the victim. The applicant claims that he attended the hearing as one of the legal representatives of the victim's relatives (see paragraph 9 below, however). During the incident seventeen people, including seven police officers, sustained injuries of different degrees of severity.
6.  In the application form the applicant maintained that as soon as the sentence of the defendant police officers was read out, the off-duty police officers in civilian clothes and the defendant police officers started to verbally and physically attack the plaintiffs, their lawyers and the victims' relatives. Later the rapid reaction police force entered the court room and started to beat and drag people out of the room. The applicant further claimed that police officers in civilian clothes barricaded the corridor of the Assize Court and attempted to lynch him and others.
7.  According to the incident scene report drafted by police officers on duty that day the events unfolded as follows: After receiving information that the hearing would be attended by a substantial number of persons from various cities following a decision taken by various political parties and associations, the police arrived at the courthouse and by 1 p.m. all the necessary security measures had been taken within and outside the perimeter of the courthouse. The security forces were warned to be prepared for possible provocations and all those who had entered the hearing room were searched. The hearing commenced at 3.40 p.m. As soon as the court delivered its verdict at 6 p.m., one of the sisters of the deceased started dancing with her hands in the air and another person shouted out that the justice had been done and that the fascist police would serve their sentence. A verbal and physical confrontation between the two groups ensued. The rapid reaction police officers entered the hearing room and had to use force in order to restore public order. The incident report noted that five persons, including the applicant, who had been injured in the course of the commotion at the courthouse, had been transferred to a doctor for medical treatment.
8.  At 6.45 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Aydın State Hospital who noted superficial grazes on the right side of the applicant's neck, a superficial cut on his chin and widespread redness on the upper side of his right leg.
9.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant gave evidence to a public prosecutor where he admitted that he had not been representing the plaintiff at the hearing but had been there as an observer on behalf of the Contemporary Lawyers' Association. He claimed that when the judge read out the sentences of the defendants, the plain clothes police officers sitting on the benches started to verbally attack the lawyers and the press. The applicant maintained that a commotion ensued during which he was beaten and dragged out of the courtroom by 5 or 6 plain clothes police officers. He claimed that he realised that they were police officers from the way they acted and that he would be able to recognise them if he saw them.
10.  On 22 April 1998 the applicant filed an official complaint with the Bakırköy public prosecutor's office about these events and requested the prosecution of the plain clothes police officers working at the anti-terror branch of the Aydın Security Directorate. He maintained that he would be able to identify the policemen. The applicant asked to be referred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination.
11.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bakırköy Forensic Medicine Department, who noted that he complained of pain in the chin area, which bore a cut, that there was a 1 cm bruise on the back of his head, a 2x1 cm bruise on the back of the right femur and that he complained of pain in the upper legs. The doctor concluded that the injuries noted therein rendered the applicant unfit for work for five days.
12.  In the meantime, the Izmir Bar Association, Contemporary Lawyers' Association and a number of lawyers filed complaints with the Aydın prosecutor's office condemning the incident and requesting the prosecution of those responsible.
13.  On 24 April 1998 the Bakırköy public prosecutor decided that he lacked competence ratione loci and transferred the investigation file to the Aydın public prosecutor's office.
14.  On 15 May 1998 the Bakırköy Forensic Medicine Department, relying on the applicant's medical report of 21 April 1998, concluded that the injuries noted therein rendered the applicant unfit for work for five days.
15.  On 27 November 1998 the Aydın public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against thirteen people, which included two journalists, a local politician and seven police officers at the Aydın Security Directorate on account of, inter alia, causing bodily harm within the meaning of Article 456 of the Criminal Code. The Izmir Bar Association, the Aydın Bar Association, the Contemporary Lawyers' Association and nineteen people, including seven police officers other than those accused, and the applicant were listed as complainants (müşteki) in the indictment.
16.  On the same day, as regards the police officers on duty that day, the prosecutor gave a decision of incompetence ratione materiae and transferred the investigation file to the Aydın Provincial Office.
17.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant requested to join the proceedings as a third party.
18.  On 24 March 1999 the applicant submitted a written letter to the Aydın Criminal Court of First Instance requesting the prosecution of the accused police officers. In his letter the applicant repeated that he and others had been physically and verbally attacked by plain clothes police officers, that he had been beaten and taken out of the court room by plain clothes police officers and that the police had attempted to lynch him in the corridors of the courthouse.
19.  On 2 April 2001 the Aydın Criminal Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 4616, that the criminal proceedings should be suspended and subsequently discontinued if no offence of the same or a more serious kind was committed by the offenders within a five-year period.
20.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant's objection against the above decision in respect of the seven police officers was dismissed by the Aydın Assize Court.
21.  In the meantime, on 23 April 1998, an investigation was instigated by the police inspection commission against thirteen police officers. Two police chiefs (“the investigators”) were appointed to prepare a report regarding the incident and allegations of battery.
22.  It appears from the report that in the course of its preparation the investigators heard evidence from the accused police officers, other police officers on duty that day, six journalists including those injured that day and a certain Mr E.Y. They examined video footage of two television channels, namely, EGE TV and ATV, as well as photographs and the medical reports of those injured.
23.  On 29 May 1998 the report was submitted to the board of investigation, recommending that the board decline authorisation for prosecution in respect of the police officers on duty that day on account of a lack of evidence. The investigators submitted that two police officers who had been off duty that day were being directly investigated by the public prosecutor. The investigators further considered that there was no call for disciplinary punishment as regards the thirteen police officers on account of lack of evidence.